Kelo

The focus in the Kelo majority on Euclidean-style planning — if a taking where a private party either ends up with the land or is benefited is part of some kind of plan, then it is likely ok — raises the question: how much planning must the condemning agency do before it can take property?

The Michigan Court of Appeals took up that question in County of Kalamazoo v. Berry, No. 367503 (Sep. 11, 2026) (per curiam), and concluded that identifying a valid public use and explaining why the property is needed is about all the “plan” needs to be.
Continue Reading County Can Condemn Private “Inholding” Surrounded By Parkland, Even If The “Plan” Is Simply To Make The Park Whole

It’s that time of the year again. Fall’s-a-coming, and that means that in a few days, we’re back at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia to teach two courses: Eminent Domain and Property Rights (W&M is one of the few law schools in the country that offer a course in eminent domain, just compensation, and takings) -and Land Use Controls (an especially hot topic at the moment).
Continue Reading Back To School For Dirt Law @ William & Mary, Season 9

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. (And an issue we’ve been following for a while.) [Disclosure: our shop filed an amicus brief in that case in favor of the property owner.] In Township of Jackson v. Getzel Bee, LLC, No. 090404 (N.J. July 20, 2026), the New Jersey Supreme Court invalidated a taking where the stated public use was to acquire property for open space, but the condemned properties were not going be be so used, but instead would be used to swap with another private owner, so its property could be used for open space. …
Continue Reading New Jersey: No Taking To Swap Land With Someone Else

It hardly seems like two decades-plus have passed. After all, it was a mere 10 years ago we were lamenting “Kelo At 10: Still Stinks, And A Decade Has Not Lessened The Odor.” But yes, it was 21 years ago today … the U.S. Supreme Court, by the thinnest of margins, held in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (June 23, 2005) that there’s nothing inherently suspect about “economic development” takings to justify a higher level of judicial scrutiny than the judges-as-poodles standard of review applied in Public Use challenges to takings for every other reason…
Continue Reading Kelo Hits 21 (And Gets Worse With Age)

The majority opinion of the Texas Supreme Court in State of Texas v. JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC, No. 24-0447 (June 12, 2026), starts off pretty good: “The right to own property is ‘fundamental, natural, inherent, inalienable, not derived from the legislature and . . . preexist[s] even constitutions.'” And it gets better from there. At issue was one of those “buyback” statutes — property taken for a public use that isn’t used for that public use within a defined time frame can be repurchased by its former owner. In this case, Texas’s (as the caption indicates).
Continue Reading Texas: Agreeing To Settle A Just Compensation Claim Can Trigger Repurchase Right If Govt Doesn’t Use Property For Stated Purpose

We like seeing student-authored pieces in our areas of interest, especially those where the subject is eminent domain. Here’s another example. In “Public Use on the Loose: Clarifying the Takings Clause’s Public Use Requirement,” author Megan Hoefs focuses on the pretext argument, arguing that the Public Use Clause imposes a good faith requirement.
Continue Reading New Note On Good Faith In Eminent Domain: “Public Use on the Loose: Clarifying the Takings Clause’s Public Use Requirement,” 53 Pepperdine L. Rev. 729 (Megan Hoefs)

Be sure to check out this student note which criticizes the Second Circuit’s approach to pretextual takings in Brinkmann v. Town of Southold, 96 F.4th 209 (2d Cir. 2024), and offers a different way to analyze cases in which the government’s stated public use doesn’t appear to be its actual use or purpose for exercising eminent domain. …
Continue Reading New Must-Read Article: Anna Fein, Pants on Fire: How the Brinkmann Majority Forgot About the Takings Clause in a Takings Clause Case, 99 S. Cal. L. Rev. 405 (2025)

In Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal District v. Nguyen, No 2025-C-00827 (Mar. 6, 2026), the Louisiana Supreme Court invalidated a quick take by the Port of a vacant 29-acre parcel, because the property was to be leased to “a private company for its exclusive development and use.” Slip op. at 1. [Disclosure: our shop filed an amicus brief, so we had a dog in the hunt.]…
Continue Reading Post-Kelo Amendments To Louisiana Constitution Prohibit Taking To Lease To Private Company For Its Own Use (Even If The Fifth Amendment Might Allow It)

We’re spending the day at the alma mater, talking alongside some of the luminaries in the field (lawprofs Thomas Mitchell, Henry Smith, John Inafranca, Thomas Merrill, and Pamela Sameulson, among others) about our favorite topics: dirt law and property rights. This is the “Future of Property Rights” Conference that we mentioned not long ago at the University of Hawaii Law School. …
Continue Reading 2026 Future of Property Law Conference, University of Hawaii Law School

The view from the podium

That’s right. More than 300 of the nation’s best eminent domain lawyers, judges, appraisers, right-of-way agents, scholars, and other industry professionals are in Savannah for the next two and a half days for what is now known as the American Law Institute (“ALI” alone, no longer with the “-CLE” addition)…